The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX) opened today’s hearings on Social Security with grim statistics. Unless Congress acts, Americans receiving disability benefits won’t get full benefits starting in 2016, and when Americans who are 48 today reach full retirement age in 2033, they and everyone else receiving retirement and survivor benefits would see a 23% benefit cut. “Social Security is facing the greatest challenge since 1983,” Rep. Johnson said, referring to last major overhaul under President Ronald Reagan.

“We have a generational crisis of enormous proportions,” Lawrence Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University (and a Forbes contributor) testified at the House Ways and Mean Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security. “This country is 58% underfinanced, Social Security is 33% underfinanced. Social Security has a $24.9 trillion unfunded liability over an infinite horizon.” One solution to make up for this mess is to impose a 4.1% additional payroll tax (that means you pay in another 4 cents on every dollar) starting now and continuing forever. Got your attention?

While Congress is debating whether to act sooner or later (my guess is later), Americans are left struggling with a complex system that leaves even well-informed taxpayers in the lurch. I found the most telling anecdotes in Kotlikoff’s testimony available here.

One example is a hypothetical 62-year-old couple who have contributed the maximum amount to the system each year they worked. If they take benefits early at age 62 their lifetime benefits would total $1.2 million. But if they wait until age 70 to collect, and if a) one of the two spouses files for a retirement benefit at full retirement age but suspends its collection, b) the other spouse files just for a spousal benefit, and c) both spouses take their retirement benefit at 70, then the couple’s lifetime benefits would total $1.6 million—a $400,000 difference.

Do these kinds of mistakes happen in real life? Every day. “This is like a random lottery what you get out of the system because it’s so complicated” said Kotlikoff, who created the MaximizeMySocialSecurity calculator. In his testimony, he also shares two personal examples. A recently widowed friend, Jerry, 65 and a high earner, told Kotlikoff over dinner that he planned to retire at 70 and take Social Security then. Kotlikoff explained to him that he could take a widow’s benefit starting at age 66 and be able to collect an additional $120,000 before turning 70.

In another case, Kotlikoff met a 68-year-old doctor who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, with a two-year life expectancy. His wife, 64, had a limited earnings history. A Social Security representative had advised the doctor to begin collecting benefits immediately. But by doing so the doctor’s wife’s future widow’s benefit would be reduced by 16%. Kotlikoff helped the doctor suspend his retirement benefit to assure his wife the higher benefit for the rest of her life.

So the first example is knowing how widow’s benefits work, and the second is knowing how delayed retirement credits work. There’s more: deemed filing, start-stop-start strategies, family benefit maximums, the Adjustment of the Reduction Factor that can mitigate the Earnings Test, file and suspend, and spousal/widow(er)/divorcee spousal and divorced widow(er) benefits. All in all Social Security’s Handbook has 2,728 rules and its Program Operating Manual has tens of thousands of rules to explain these rules.

No wonder advocates are pushing for a simpler, fairer system. Further to the point of the inequities in the current system, C. Eugene Steuerle, a fellow at the Urban Institute, whose testimony is here, cited these basic examples.

A two-earner couple (each earning $40,000 a year for example) can receive more than $100,000 fewer benefits than single-ea single-earner couple with one earner at $80,000 a year who have the same lifetime earnings and pay the same tax.

A person who divorces at nine years and eleven months likely will get more than $100,000 fewer dollars of benefits than one who divorces at 10 years and one month.

A person who works 40 years for $30,000 will get tens of thousands of dollars fewer benefits than someone with the same lifetime earnings, but works 30 years at $40,000.

Working single parents who haven’t been married to any one individual for at least 10 years often receive at least $100,000 fewer lifetime benefits that some spouses who don’t work, pay fewer or no Social Security tax and raise no children

After 2 hours, there was no consensus on a solution, or even if the Social Security system is in crisis or not. Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, tried to close on an optimistic note: “We can afford to cover the shortfalls and reassure people that Social Security will be there.” Chairman Johnson adjourned, and then panelists and members all started chiming in at once: “Social Security is broke today!” Then Rep. Johnson told everyone who had more to say to submit something more for the record. The debate goes on.